NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT HOA THI AN NGUYEN, No. 20-70090

Pe titione r, Age nc y No. A099-764-681
v. M EM OR ANDUM * M ER R IC K B . GAR LAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l,
R e sponde nt. On Pe tition for R e vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igra tion Appe a ls Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 12, 2021 Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : HAW KINS a nd C ALLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s, a nd FITZW ATER , ** Distric t Judge

. Hoa Thi An Nguy e n (“ N guy e n” ), a na tive a nd c itiz e n of Vie tna m , pe titions for

re vie w of the B oa

r d o f I m m igra tion A ppe a ls’ (“ B IA’ s” ) d ism i ssa l of he r a ppe a l

c ha lle nging the im

m igra tion judge ’ s de nia l of he r m otion to re ope n proc e e d ings a n d 

# FIL ED
APR 21 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a p p r op r i a te for public a tion a nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Sidne y A. Fitz w a te r, Unite d State s D istric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of Te xa s, sitting by de signa tion.re sc ind a re m ova l orde r e nte re d in abse ntia
. W e ha ve jurisdic tio n u n d er 8 U.S.C

. §

1252 a nd de ny the pe tition. W e re vie w the de nia l of a m ot i o n t o re ope n for a buse of disc re tion. Se e

, e .g. , Go v . Holde r , 744 F.3d 604, 609 (9th C ir. 2014) (c iting B hasin v . G onzale s , 423 F.3d 977, 983 (9th C i r. 2 005)). W e m ust uphold the de c ision of t h e BI A unle s s it “ a c te d

a rbitra rily , irra tiona lly , or c o ntra ry to la w.” Lo v . Ashc roft , 341 F.3d 9 34, 937 (9th C ir. 2003) (quoting C

e lis-C aste llano v . A shc r oft , 298 F.3d 888, 891 (9th C ir. 2002)). W e re vie w the B IA’ s le ga l c onc lusions d e nov o a nd its fa c tua l findings for substa ntia l

e vide nc e . N

ajmabadi v . Holde r , 597 F.3d 983, 9 86 (9th C ir. 2010) (c iting Bhasin , 423 F.3d a t 983). B e c a use the fa c ts a

re known to the pa

rtie s , we do not re pe a t th e m he re e xc e pt
a s ne c e ssa

ry to e xpla i n our de c ision. T he BI A did n ot a

buse its disc re tion in dism issing Nguy e n’ s a ppe a l of the de nia l of he r m otion to re ope n p roc e e dings a nd re sc ind the re m ova l orde r, whic h she ba se d on la c k of notic e . N guy e n d id not inform t he U n ite d Sta t e s C itiz e nship a n d Im m i gra tio n Se rvic e s (“ U SC IS” ) of a n a ddre s s c h a nge from W a shington to C a lifornia ; the notic e to a ppe a r a nd h e a ring notic e s we re se nt by re gula r m a il to the la st a ddre ss that she p rovide d ; a n d t h e BI A re a sona bly c onc lude d tha t she did not pre s e nt s uffic i e nt e vide nc e to re but the we a ke r pres u m ption o f de live ry . Se e

- 2 -Se mbiring v . G onzale s , 499 F.3 d 9 8 1 , 98 8-89 (9th C i r. 2007) (ide ntify ing fa c tors
re le va nt to e v a luat ing a

pe titione r’ s re b utta l of the pre sum ption of e ffe c tive se rvic e ). Nor ha s Nguy e n provide d a le ga l ba sis to c onc lude tha t a third pa rty ’ s a pplic a tion to the a ge nc y on he r be ha lf a m o unte d to a g loba l upda te of he r a ddre ss of re c ord with the USC IS or othe rwise provide d c onstruc tive knowle dge t ha t she ha d m ove d to Sa n Jose , C a lifornia

. For the sa m e re a s ons, we a lso re je c t N g u ye n ’ s d

ue proc e ss a

rgum e nt. Se e Dobrota v . IN

S , 311 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th C ir. 2002) (holding t ha t t h e g o v er n m e nt
sa tisfie s due p r o ces s re quire m e nts by m a iling n otic e to the la st a ddre s s tha t the nonc itiz e n provide d ). PE T IT IO N DE NIE D

.

- 3 -